Dnarever
Gold Member
Offline
Australian Politics
Posts: 58611
Here
Gender: 
|
Panther wrote on Apr 26 th, 2022 at 9:17pm: Dnarever wrote on Apr 26 th, 2022 at 8:07pm: Panther wrote on Apr 26 th, 2022 at 5:29pm: Dnarever wrote on Apr 26 th, 2022 at 5:09pm: Panther wrote on Apr 26 th, 2022 at 5:06pm: Brian Ross wrote on Apr 26 th, 2022 at 4:51pm: Then you Bwian, you personally convince an American Citizen that they he/she should petition an amendment to the American Constitution precisely stating that, & stating exactly what should & should not be, & then have it voted upon in Congress.....If approved by Congress as stipulated in law, it must then be presented to the American People for their final concurrence as stipulated by law.
If the American People in the requisite number of States agree with the new amendment as stipulated by law, then it will be reported & become law......
Until that moment the following Right stands firm: Option "b" would be to just have the supreme court re define the amendment as happened in 2008.
That precedent won't realistically be reviewed &/or overruled/overturned within the near future, because unlike a fickle mob of Blue State politicians, the United States Supreme Court relies on the Original Historical Documents/Records contained in the largest library in the World, the Library of Congress, & past case Precedent including, but not limited to, the Heller & subsequent decisions, which all prove that the 2008 decision regarding the Second Amendment was come to correctly, & I trust that more precedent will be forthcoming in the next 2-3 months because of decisions still pending on already heard 2nd Amendment cases still before the Court pending their decision(s).
It was just a coincidence that the decision happened to line up with what the NRA and republicans wanted and it was convenient that it dismissed the first statement of the second amendment which had a valid literal meaning when the amendment was created but now as a prefatory clause dismisses that meaning as not existing. Yes in the 1790's a Militia was a real thing that did require to be armed for national security purposes. This is not the case in 2008 so it was removed by the supreme court which effective changed the meaning of the second. There is also the dissenting view that to bear arms is a term referencing military usage and not private use. Yes the US supreme court has become a political tool that in large does the bidding of the people and systems who put the judges in place.
There are two clauses that comprise the Second Amendment, an OPERATIVE CLAUSE, and a PREFATORY CLAUSE.
Operative Clause: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The operative clause is the actual protected Right of the People
The Supreme Court wrote:
"1. Operative Clause. a. 'Right of the People.' [used 3 times in Bill of Rights ] ... All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not 'collective' rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body." .
Prefatory Clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."
The Prefatory Clause is the lead-in that "announces a purpose " for the Operative Clause.
The Supreme Court stated:
"The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms".
The Supreme Court also stated:
"The Amendment could be rephrased, 'BECAUSE a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.' " Quote:The Prefatory Clause is the lead-in that "announces a purpose" for the Operative Clause. So people can be allowed to keep and bare arms for the purpose of belonging to the militia. Is what they say the amendment is about but they then say that it is not limited to that which changes the meaning of the amendment. The second amendment now means that even though the reason for the amendment is clearly specified the amendment really means something very different to what the words in the amendment actually say. This point was under contention with the dissenting view that the term Bear arms is a military term normally not associated with personal gun ownership this would be consistent with the words in the second amendment and not the revised version of 2008. There is nothing in this amendment saying that sensible gun laws are not to be allowed in fact it would make no sense to just have open slather on anyone having access.
|
Forum
Pages: 
⮞⮞⮞ Americans Love Guns & Freedom ⮜⮜⮜ (Read 7653 times)
